Orch OR involves numerous fairly specific and essentially falsifiable hypotheses. In 1998 twenty testable predictions of Orch OR in 9 general categories were published [15]. They are reviewed here with our comments on their current status in italics.

Neuronal microtubules are directly necessary for cognition and consciousness1.Synaptic plasticity correlates with cytoskeletal architecture/activities. The current status of this is unclear, although microtubule networks do appear to define and regulate synapses.2.Actions of psychoactive drugs, including antidepressants, involve neuronal microtubules. This indeed appears to be the case. Fluoxitene (Prozac) acts through microtubules[167]; anesthetics also act through MTs[86].3.Neuronal microtubule stabilizing/protecting drugs may prove useful in Alzheimerʼs disease. There is now some evidence that this may be so; for example, MT-stabilizer epithilone is being tested in this way[168].Microtubules communicate by cooperative dynamics4.Coherent gigahertz excitations will be found in microtubules. Indeed; in some remarkable new research, Anirban Bandyopadhyayʼs group has found coherent gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz excitations in single MTs [88] and [89].5.Dynamic microtubule vibrations correlate with cellular activity. Evidence on this issue is not yet clear, although mechanical megahertz vibrations (ultrasound) do appear to stimulate neurons and enhance mood[127].6.Stable microtubule patterns correlate with memory. The evidence concerning memory encoding in MTs remains unclear, though synaptic messengers CaMKII and PkMz do act through MTs. Each CaMKII may encode (by phosphorylation) 6 information bits to 6 tubulins in a microtubule lattice.7.‘EPR-like’ non-local correlation between separated microtubules. This is not at all clear, but such things are very hard to establish (or refute) experimentally. Bandyopadhyayʼs group is testing for ‘wireless’ resonance transfer between separated MTs[142].Quantum coherence occurs in microtubules8.Phases of quantum coherence will be detected in microtubules. There appears to be some striking evidence for effects of this general nature in Bandyopadhyayʼs recent results [88] and [89], differing hugely from classical expectations, where electrical resistance drops dramatically, at certain very specific frequencies, in a largely-temperature independent and length-independent way.9.Cortical dendrites contain largely ‘A-lattice’, compared to B-lattice, microtubules. Although there is some contrary evidence to this assertion, the actual situation remains unclear. Orch OR has been criticized because mouse brain microtubules are predominantly B lattice MTs. However these same mouse brain MTs are partially A-lattice configuration, and other research shows mixed A and B lattice MTs [156], [157] and [158]. Bandyopadhyay has preliminary evidence that MTs can shift between A- and B-lattice configurations[142], and A-lattices may be specific for quantum processes. Orch OR could also utilize B lattices, although apparently not as efficiently as A-lattice. In any case, A-lattice MTs could well be fairly rare, specific for quantum effects, and sufficient for Orch OR since the A-lattice may be needed only in a fraction of MTs in dendrites and soma, and perhaps only transiently.10.Coherent photons will be detected from microtubules. A positive piece of evidence in this direction is the detection of gigahertz excitations in MTs by Bandyopadhyayʼs group, which may be interpreted as coherent photons [88] and [89].Microtubule quantum coherence is protected by actin gelation11.Dendritic–somatic microtubules are intermittently surrounded by tight actin gel. This is perhaps a moot point, now, in view of recent results by Bandyopadhyayʼs group, as it now appears that coherence occurs at warm temperature without actin gel.12.Cycles of actin gelation and solution correlate with electrophysiology, e.g. gamma synchrony EEG. Again, this now appears to be a moot point, for the same reason as above.13.Sol–gel cycles are mediated by calcium ion flux from synaptic inputs. No clear evidence, but again a moot point.Macroscopic quantum coherence occurs among hundreds of thousands of neurons and glia inter-connected by gap junctions

Gap junctions between glia and neurons have not been found, but gap junction interneurons interweave the entire cortex.14.Electrotonic gap junctions synchronize neurons. Gap junction interneurons do appear to mediate gamma synchrony EEG [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] and [54].15.Quantum tunneling occurs across gap junctions. As yet untested.16.Quantum correlations between microtubules in different neurons occurs via gap junctions. As yet untested. However Bandyopadhyay has preliminary evidence that spatially separated MTs, perhaps even in different neurons, become entangled in terms of their BC resonances[142], so gap junctions may be unnecessary for Orch OR.The amount of neural tissue involved in a conscious event is inversely related to the event time byτ≈ℏ/EG17.Functional imaging and electrophysiology will show perception and response time shorter with more neural mass involved. As a ‘prediction’ of Orch OR, the status of this is not very clear; moreover it is very hard to provide any clear estimate of the neural mass that is involved in a ‘perception’. As a related issue, there does appear to be evidence for some kind of scale-invariance in neurophysiological processes (Section3.2 [76] and [77]).An unperturbed isolated quantum state self-collapses (OR) according toτ≈ℏ/EG18.Technological quantum superpositions will be shown to undergo OR by τ≈ℏ/EG. Various experiments are being developed which should supply an answer to this fundamental question[108], but they appear to remain several years away from being able to achieve firm conclusions.Microtubule-based cilia/centrioles are quantum optical devices19.Microtubule-based cilia in retinal rod and cone cells detect photon quantum information. This appears to be untested, so far.A critical degree of microtubule activity enabled consciousness during evolution20.Fossils will show organisms from early Cambrian (540 million years ago), had sufficient microtubule capacity for OR by τ≈ℏ/EG of less than a minute, perhaps resulting in rudimentary Orch OR, consciousness and the ‘Cambrian evolutionary explosion’. It is clearly hard to know an answer to this one, particularly because the level of consciousness in extinct creatures would be almost impossible to determine. However present day organisms looking remarkably like early Cambrian creatures (actinosphaerum, nematodes) are known to have over 109tubulins[56].

It would appear that the expectations of Orch OR have fared rather well so far, and it gives us a viable scientific proposal aimed at providing an understanding of the phenomenon of consciousness. We believe that the underlying scheme of Orch OR has a good chance of being basically correct in its fundamental conceptions.

Tegmark[161] published a critique of Orch OR based on his calculated decoherence times for microtubules of 10−13 seconds at biological temperature, far too brief for physiological effects. However Tegmark didnʼt include Orch OR stipulations and in essence created, and then refuted his own quantum microtubule model. He assumed superpositions of solitons separated from themselves by a distance of 24 nanometers along the length of the microtubule. As previously described, superposition separation in Orch OR is at the Fermi length level of atomic nuclei, i.e. 7 orders of magnitude smaller than Tegmarkʼs separation value, thus underestimating decoherence time by 7 orders of magnitude, i.e. from 10−13 s to microseconds at 10−6 seconds. Hagan et al. [162] used Tegmarkʼs same formula and recalculated microtubule decoherence times using Orch OR stipulations, finding 10−4 to 10−3 seconds, or longer. In any case, experimentally, Bandyopadhyayʼs group has found 10 kHz resonance, i.e. 10−4 seconds coherence times. Also, as stated earlier, there are versions of the beat-frequency scheme that would require much shorter decoherence times, though at the expense of correspondingly larger bodies of material being involved in the quantum-coherent states.

Reimers et al.[164] described three types of Fröhlich condensation (weak, strong and coherent, the first classical and the latter two quantum). They validated 8 MHz coherence measured in microtubules by Pokorný [134] and [135] as weak condensation. Based on simulation of a 1-dimensional linear chain of tubulin dimers representing a microtubule, they concluded that only weak Fröhlich condensation occurs in microtubules. Claiming that Orch OR requires strong or coherent Fröhlich condensation, they concluded Orch OR is invalid. However Samsonovich et al. [165] simulated a microtubule as a 2-dimensional lattice plane with toroidal boundary conditions and found Fröhlich resonance maxima at discrete locations in super-lattice patterns on the simulated microtubule surface which precisely matched experimentally observed functional attachment sites for microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs). In any case, these simulations are superseded by experimental evidence for gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz resonance discovered in single MTs by the Bandyopadhyay group (‘Bandyopadhyay coherence’, ‘BC’)

Also Hameroff already used him in his "good vibrations" paper and experiment:

The mechanism by which TUS can affect mental states is unknown (as is the mechanism by which the brain produces mental states). Tyler proposed TUS acts by vibrational stretching of neuronal membranes and/or extracellular matrix, but two recent papers from the group of Anirban Bandyopadhyay at National Institute of Material Sciences (NIMS) in Tsukuba, Japan (Sahu et al. [2013] Appl. Phys. Letts. 102, 123701; Sahu et al [2013] Biosensors and Bioelectronics 47:141) have suggested another possibility. The NIMS group used nanotechnology to study conductive properties of individual microtubules, protein polymers of tubulin (the brain's most prevalent protein). Major components of the neuronal cytoskeleton, microtubules grow and extend neurons, form and regulate synapses, are disrupted in Alzheimer's disease, and theoretically linked to information processing, memory encoding and mental states. Bandyopadhyay's NIMS group found that microtubules have remarkable electronic conductive properties when excited at certain specific resonant frequencies, e.g. in the low megahertz, precisely the range of TUS.

Dr. Stuart Hameroff, lead author on the new TUS study, said: "This suggests TUS may stimulate natural megahertz resonances in brain microtubules, enhancing not only mood and conscious mental states, but perhaps also microtubule functions in synaptic plasticity, nerve growth and repair. We plan further studies of TUS on traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer's disease and post-traumatic stress disorders. 'Tuning the tubules' may help a variety of mental states and cognitive disorders."

We have discovered "frequency fractal" in microtubules and "negative resonance", these two terms we have coined very recently, let me explain. It means apart from the fundamental frequencies (8MHz, 12MHz, 18MHz, 22MHz, 95MHz, 128MHz, 184MHz, 228MHz etc) it follows anharmonic and harmonic overtones. To explain simply, in normal musical instruments, you have one fundamental frequency say 8MHz and their integral multiples, right? So it will be 16, 32, 48.... and so on. But in microtubule it is 1.3 times, then 1.8 times then 2.3 times etc. This is remarkable in musical instruments. You can vibrate at some frequencies and communication will occur through a different overtones, this has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally. Now, negative resonance means, some frequencies do not send signal in the forward direction, rather, in the reverse way. What is the outcome? You get x and y parts (positive and negative resonance) which constructs basic overtones (pixels) so you get a fractal.

Now communication operating at astronomically large number of frequencies simultaneously (at real and imaginary space, by basic definition of fractal), cannot remain confined inside a microtubule, we have checked these vibrations controls neurotransmitter motions, then "firing" patterns and as you know fractal never dies if there is a fractal like hardware. We have it all over the body. That means frequency fractal will be everywhere in every single rhythm, from neuron firing to circadian rhythm. We want to map the entire fractal frequency architecture of entire human brain and body in one year by collaborating with an MIT professor Chi-Sang Poon who works for large scale rhythms in the brain and the body.

If we find a generic rule, it will be a new kind of biology operating in parallel with the existing chemical only biology. And it will also be proved that all brain building projects will fail, we require a completely new kind of science, materials and engineering technology to understand basic biology more completely before even we think of replicating brain.

Therefore, if your expertise is added it will be a great thing. Until now we planned only to look at it physically. Professor Poon and I both believe that we need a biologist who can correlate our work with biology and show that chemical only molecular biology and our physical biology live side by side.

Stuart Hameroff, June 25 at 10:21 pmPlease see two papers (below) from Anirban Bandyopadhyay's group at NIMS in Tsukuba, Japan. They show quantum resonances in single microtubules at ambient temperature in frequency ranges from gigahertz to megahertz to 10 kilohertz, thus coherence times of 10^-4 secs at least. The frequency ranges appear to be fractal-like Megahertz in mechanical vibration is ultrasound. Weve recently shown transcranial ultrasound improves mood. Now we are looking in the lab at ultrasound effects on development of single neurons. If ultrasound accelerates neuronal growth and development (as it should, by resonating microtubules) its a therapy for brain injury. We hope to look at this in the next year.

The mechanism in microtubules looks like the quantum coherence in photosynthesis proteins, which apparently needs coherent mechanical vibration for the quantum states. So ultrasound mechanical vibrations can stimulate quantum coherence in microtubules. That's quantum healing.

People like Dawkins must be confronted head-on. To defend 'quantum healing', attack Dawkins' so-called strength, put him on the defensive. Be as biological as possible. He really doesn't know much about it.

1) Healing is health; health is optimal life. What is life? Increasingly, life at its core is shown to be a quantum system, non-local and thus susceptible to 'quantum healing' (which I would define through nonlocal entanglement)

2) Dawkins' 'God' is DNA. DNA, like other important biomolecules, is a quantum device (invite him into an argument about quantum biology)

3) the Anthropic principle - to explain how the cosmological constants, or dimensionless numbers which govern the universe happen to be precisely right for life and consciousness without a guiding hand, Dawkins (whether he realizes it or not) needs to invoke multiple worlds/multiverse b.s. Make him defend that.

I really have not time or desire to try and fight my way through their newest BS. The fact that it is based on an unprovable agenda (existence of souls/minds outside the brain) is enough for me to reject it

Other looks interesting links that appear to be about actual science of consciousness:

Thanks Kennyc for the info. I also does not like it because its weak. I think Hameroff is closing down into woo more and more. Quantum Healing? Is he nuts?

I know that he was in what the bleep we know:

The film features several interviewees for the documentary portion, including:Amit Goswami is a theoretical nuclear physicist and was a member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics starting in 1968, teaching physics for 32 years. After a period of distress and frustration in his private and professional life starting at the age 38, his research interests shifted to quantum cosmology, quantum measurement theory, and applications of quantum mechanics to the mind-body problem.John Hagelin, a physicist at Maharishi University of Management, director of MUM's Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy, and three-time presidential candidate of the Transcendental Meditation-linked Natural Law Party.Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist, author, and associate director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, who worked with Roger Penrose on a speculative quantum theory of consciousness.JZ Knight, a spiritual teacher who is also identified in the narrative portions as the spirit "Ramtha" that Knight is allegedly channelling.

I think its not fair that they cite almost all of his work to support their Orch-OR model and now he reviews it. I think that is a error in science because it should have been reviewed by people who have nothing to do with it and because I think why its not valid.

Its the same like on Theology Universities. Their books are reviewed or commented by their colleagues who work in the same department and they make it look like science and from what I remember and experienced in college I can tell that almost no one reads their colleagues work. It all passes like it is all sound and good made. I think the same can be applied here.

We will see how this will turn up but I doubt that physicists and other mainstream people will look at it again when it received so much criticism and robotics are making their way and becoming more advanced. Just a small look here:

In early December 2012, the LS3 performed walks through woods in Fort Pickett, Virginia. These tests were with a human controller giving voice commands to the robot to give it orders. Giving voice commands is seen as a more efficient way of controlling the LS3, because a soldier would be too peoccupied with a joystick and computer screens to focus on a mission. There are currently ten commands that the system can understand. Saying "engine on" activated it, and saying "follow tight" made it walk on the same path as the controller. Saying "follow corridor" made the LS3 generate the path most efficient for itself to follow the human operator. Others include basic orders like "stop" and "engine off." Continued work is being made to make the LS3 more mobile, like traversing a deep snow-covered hill, or avoiding gunfire and bombs on the battlefield. DARPA intends to supply a Marine company with an LS3 by 2014.

Hameroff can say many times that this is just intelligence but I think that consciousness is nothing more then just evolved intelligence. The more intelligent robots become the more they will have a consciousness like we do. I think that Hameroff and Penroses theory will bite the dust and their woo also..

Hameroff can say many times that this is just intelligence but I think that consciousness is nothing more then just evolved intelligence. The more intelligent robots become the more they will have a consciousness like we do. I think that Hameroff and Penroses theory will bite the dust and their woo also..

Well, yeah, depending on how you are defining 'intelligence.' As far as I'm concerned consciousness is nothing more than evolved awareness as I've said before. It's the thermostat of our brain/mind.

I like Penroses theory, but Hameroffs always pushes it too far in the wrong direction. There's pretty good cogent arguments to be made about free wills relationship to the laws of physics being due to the in-deterministic nature of quantum effects and chaos theory.

kennyc wrote:Well, yeah, depending on how you are defining 'intelligence.' As far as I'm concerned consciousness is nothing more than evolved awareness as I've said before. It's the thermostat of our brain/mind.

Can you explain this thermostat analogy? I often hear people say consciousness is 'like a thermostat', usually from people who have never much experimented with their own outside of culturally sanctioned states.

If we as adults are not free to make sovereign decisions – right or wrong – about our own consciousness, that most intimate, that most sapient, that most personal part of ourselves, then in what useful sense can we be said to be free at all?

Consciousness is one of the great mysteries of science – perhaps the greatest mystery. We all know we have it, when we think, when we dream, when we savour tastes and aromas, when we hear a great symphony, when we fall in love: it is surely the most intimate, the most sapient, the most personal part of ourselves. Yet no one can claim to have understood and explained it completely. There’s no doubt it’s associated with the brain in some way but the nature of that association is far from clear. How do these three pounds of material stuff inside our skulls allow us to have experiences?

David Chalmers, a professor at the Australian National University, has dubbed this the “hard problem” of consciousness; but many scientists, particularly those who are philosophically inclined to believe that all phenomena can be reduced to material interactions, deny that any problem exists. To them, it seems self-evident that physical processes within the stuff of the brain produce consciousness rather in the way that a generator produces electricity – that is, consciousness is an “epiphenomenon” of brain activity. And they see it as equally obvious that there cannot be such things as out-of-body experiences or the conscious survival of death, as both consciousness and experience are confined to the brain and must die when the brain dies.

Other scientists with equally impressive credentials are not so sure and are increasingly willing to consider a very different analogy – that the relationship of consciousness to the brain may be less like the relationship of the generator to the electricity it produces and more like that of the TV signal to the TV set. In that case, when the TV set is destroyed – dead – the signal still continues.

Nothing in the present state of knowledge of neuroscience rules this possibility out. True, if you damage certain areas of the brain, certain areas of consciousness are compromised, but this does not prove that those areas of the brain generate the relevant areas of consciousness. If you were to damage certain areas of your TV set, the picture would deteriorate or vanish but the TV signal would remain intact.

We should remember that what seems obvious and self-evident to one generation may not seem at all obvious and self-evident to the next. For hundreds of years, it was obvious and self-evident to the greatest human minds that the sun moved around the earth – one need only look to the sky, they said, to see the truth of this proposition. Those who maintained the revolutionary view that the earth moved around the sun faced the Inquisition. Yet the revolutionaries were right and orthodoxy was terribly, ridiculously wrong.

The same may well prove to be true with the mystery of consciousness. Yes, it does seem obvious and self-evident that the brain produces it (the generator analogy) but this is a deduction from incomplete data. New discoveries may force materialist science to rescind this theory in favour of something more like the TV analogy, in which consciousness is recognised as fundamentally “non-local” in nature – perhaps even as one of the basic driving forces of the universe. At the very least, we should withhold judgement until more evidence is in and view with suspicion those who hold dogmatic views about the nature of consciousness.

It’s at this point that the whole seemingly academic issue becomes intensely political. Modern technological society idealises and is monopolistically focused on only one state ofconsciousness – the alert, problem-solving state that makes us efficient producers and consumers of material goods and services. At the same time, our society seeks to police and control a wide range of other “altered” states of consciousness. I refer here to the so-called war on drugs, which is better understood as a war on consciousness and which maintains, supposedly in the interests of society, that we as adults do not have the right or maturity to make sovereign decisions about the states of consciousness we wish to explore and embrace.

This extraordinary imposition on adult cognitive liberty is justified by the idea that our brain activity, disturbed by drugs, will adversely impact on our behaviour towards others. Yet anyone who pauses to think seriously for even a moment must realise that we already have adequate laws that govern adverse behaviour towards others and that the real purpose of the “war on drugs” must therefore be to bear down on consciousness itself.

Confirmation that this is so came from the last Labour government. It declared that its drug policy would be based on scientific evidence yet in 2009 it sacked Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for stating the simple statistical fact that cannabis is less dangerous (in terms of measured “harms”) than tobacco and alcohol and that Ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding. The present coalition remains just as adamant in its enforcement of the so-called war on drugs and continues to pour public money into large, armed law-enforcement bureaucracies that are entitled to break down our door in the dead of night, invade our home, ruin our reputation and put us behind bars.

All of this, we have been persuaded, is in our own interests. Yet if we as adults are not free to make sovereign decisions – right or wrong – about our own consciousness, that most intimate, that most sapient, that most personal part of ourselves, then in what useful sense can we be said to be free at all? And how are we to begin to take meaningful responsibility for all the other aspects of our lives when our governments seek to disenfranchise us from this most fundamental of all human rights and responsibilities?

. And they see it as equally obvious that there cannot be such things as out-of-body experiences or the conscious survival of death, as both consciousness and experience are confined to the brain and must die when the brain dies.

OBEs are already debunked and do not proof a soul. Its just woo:

Research by Olaf Blanke in Switzerland found that it is possible to reliably elicit experiences somewhat similar to the OBE by stimulating regions of the brain called the right temporal-parietal junction (TPJ; a region where the temporal lobe and parietal lobe of the brain come together). Blanke and his collaborators in Switzerland have explored the neural basis of OBEs by showing that they are reliably associated with lesions in the right TPJ region[117] and that they can be reliably elicited with electrical stimulation of this region in a patient with epilepsy.[118] These elicited experiences may include perceptions of transformations of the patient's arms and legs (complex somatosensory responses) and whole-body displacements (vestibular responses).[119][120]

In neurologically normal subjects, Blanke and colleagues then showed that the conscious experience of the self and body being in the same location depends on multisensory integration in the TPJ. Using event-related potentials, Blanke and colleagues showed the selective activation of the TPJ 330–400 ms after stimulus onset when healthy volunteers imagined themselves in the position and visual perspective that generally are reported by people experiencing spontaneous OBEs. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the same subjects impaired mental transformation of the participant's own body. No such effects were found with stimulation of another site or for imagined spatial transformations of external objects, suggesting the selective implication of the TPJ in mental imagery of one's own body.[121]

In a follow up study, Arzy et al. showed that the location and timing of brain activation depended on whether mental imagery is performed with mentally embodied or disembodied self location. When subjects performed mental imagery with an embodied location, there was increased activation of a region called the "extrastriate body area" (EBA), but when subjects performed mental imagery with a disembodied location, as reported in OBEs, there was increased activation in the region of the TPJ. This leads Arzy et al. to argue that "these data show that distributed brain activity at the EBA and TPJ as well as their timing are crucial for the coding of the self as embodied and as spatially situated within the human body."[122]

Blanke and colleagues thus propose that the right temporal-parietal junction is important for the sense of spatial location of the self, and that when these normal processes go awry, an OBE arises.[123]

In August 2007 Blanke's lab published research in Science demonstrating that conflicting visual-somatosensory input in virtual reality could disrupt the spatial unity between the self and the body. During multisensory conflict, participants felt as if a virtual body seen in front of them was their own body and mislocalized themselves toward the virtual body, to a position outside their bodily borders. This indicates that spatial unity and bodily self-consciousness can be studied experimentally and is based on multisensory and cognitive processing of bodily information.[124]

Other scientists with equally impressive credentials are not so sure and are increasingly willing to consider a very different analogy – that the relationship of consciousness to the brain may be less like the relationship of the generator to the electricity it produces and more like that of the TV signal to the TV set. In that case, when the TV set is destroyed – dead – the signal still continues.

There is no evidence for this woo.. All wooesters from Chopra to Hamerhoff are using this analogy and I must say I am sick of it. If there is a signal why have we not detect it yet? There is even a whole thread here about this analogy. Try to go take a look there Zeuzzz:

Other scientists with equally impressive credentials are not so sure and are increasingly willing to consider a very different analogy – that the relationship of consciousness to the brain may be less like the relationship of the generator to the electricity it produces and more like that of the TV signal to the TV set. In that case, when the TV set is destroyed – dead – the signal still continues.

There is no evidence for this woo.. All wooesters from Chopra to Hamerhoff are using this analogy and I must say I am sick of it. If there is a signal why have we not detect it yet? There is even a whole thread here about this analogy. Try to go take a look there Zeuzzz:

Nor is it even correct. A 'TV set' is a receiver of signals not a generator of signals completely opposite of the comparison of the generator. This stupidity is apparently claiming that our consciousness is 'beamed into our head?' What stupidity. What tin-foil hat woo.

Yes OBEs can be provoked by various means. My favorite is ketamine, becoming part of the ceiling and looking at yourself from above is a weird experience you tend not to forget (I had my first in the emergency room after a bike crash, when morphine was not strong enough they injected me with 150mg of ketamine to anesthetize me to the pain and lower my vital signs from critical levels). This effect was first documented in the literature by Hameroff when he was working in the anaesthetic department as an anaesthesiologist studying altered states of consciousness.

There is no evidence for this woo.

There's no real evidence for the mind or consciousness, only correlates to material neuronal activity that shows no direction of causation (this is always assumed as brain > consciousness, but works either way round), all we have is correlation without a direction of causation ever being proved, only assumed.

All wooesters from Chopra to Hamerhoff are using this analogy and I must say I am sick of it. If there is a signal why have we not detect it yet?

Neuroscience has pretty much been documenting this signal for all of it's history. It's a just a matter of how you subjectively interpret the data into your world view (materialistically or phenomenologically being the two main schools of thought). When you take into account the extremely alien and externally oriented experiences people have on psychedelics you have to conclude that these altered states of consciousness are coming from an external source of some sort, they are far more coherent and alien to a persons memories or expectations than can be explained by the materialistic train of thought of them being just neuronal chaos.

Most closed eye visuals in high enough doses are next to impossible to explain in terms of the brain producing them rather than receiving them, which is why they are referred to as 'mystical experiences' in the literature.

"A reductionist or materialist, somebody who likely didn't like these substances or never tried them, will say that it's just neurological chaos, it's just you have interrupted the functioning of good brain chemicals and evil brain chemicals are giving a sense of chaos. Well that just doesn't cut the mustard. I mean that type of stuff might work on people who have never experienced it or on the troops, but not if you are talking to anyone who has ever been there. I know what a neurological chaos would look like, it would look like random bright lights, moving colors, physical seizures, etc. It would not be ruins, never before imagined landscapes, machines, paintings, works of art, building plans, weapons, bits of manufactured technological detritus; these things are too coherent. They're objects in some kind of superstructure of the mind. I didn't get into this enterprise by being an airhead or a hippie. My attitude is if it's a real experience it can take the pressure. I am not saying psychedelic experiences are real in the sense of contacting aliens or entities; that leads to all sorts of epistemic complications, but the congruency of the experiences of totally disparate hallucinogens points to something totally inexplicable by typical molecular biology and neuroscience as it relates to conscious experience. You don't have to sidestep round the real thing, if people are telling you you should avert your gaze or or plug your ears, then you are probably in the presence of crap.

I tried buddhism and yoga in the East in Thailand, I looked into meditation, looked briefly into Christianity with the UDV, I was fast shuffled by beady eyed little mean in goatee's; I know the whole spiritual supermarket and rigmarole. Yet I find nothing there to interest me on the level of five grams of dried mushrooms in silent darkness. Thats where the pedal meets the metal. Thats where the rubber meets the road. "

There is even a whole thread here about this analogy. Try to go take a look there Zeuzzz:

"A reductionist or materialist, somebody who likely didn't like these substances or never tried them, will say that it's just neurological chaos, it's just you have interrupted the functioning of good brain chemicals and evil brain chemicals are giving a sense of chaos. Well that just doesn't cut the mustard. I mean that type of stuff might work on people who have never experienced it or on the troops, but not if you are talking to anyone who has ever been there. I know what a neurological chaos would look like, it would look like random bright lights, moving colors, physical seizures, etc. It would not be ruins, never before imagined landscapes, machines, paintings, works of art, building plans, weapons, bits of manufactured technological detritus; these things are too coherent. They're objects in some kind of superstructure of the mind. I didn't get into this enterprise by being an airhead or a hippie. My attitude is if it's a real experience it can take the pressure. I am not saying psychedelic experiences are real in the sense of contacting aliens or entities; that leads to all sorts of epistemic complications, but the congruency of the experiences of totally disparate hallucinogens points to something totally inexplicable by typical molecular biology and neuroscience as it relates to conscious experience. You don't have to sidestep round the real thing, if people are telling you you should avert your gaze or or plug your ears, then you are probably in the presence of crap.

I tried buddhism and yoga in the East in Thailand, I looked into meditation, looked briefly into Christianity with the UDV, I was fast shuffled by beady eyed little mean in goatee's; I know the whole spiritual supermarket and rigmarole. Yet I find nothing there to interest me on the level of five grams of dried mushrooms in silent darkness. Thats where the pedal meets the metal. Thats where the rubber meets the road. "

Forgot I wrote this thread as I also wrote a blog entry on this. Been accused somewhere else of plagiarizing from this thread ... before they knew I wrote this, so this is just a brief bump to prove I am who I say I am here

Go on - you'll be telling me next that Danish kings had palaces there.

The subjects you've raised is the point in question. There is evidence all over this forum that you, shall we say, co-opt the opinions of other people. Is there any reason why I should think that there's an original thought in your entire mind and, given that this is the case, why anyone should waste their time discussing the opinions of other people with you?

South UK? - I know no one who would use such a description. Not that it isn't geographically accurate, but it certainly isn't normal. Explain, please.

"co-opt the opinions of other people" give me a break, anyone who has an opinion about anything has learnt it from someone at some point. Would you say to a physicist that they have co-opted the opinions of Richard Feynman?

"why anyone should waste their time discussing the opinions of other people with you?" because people who do engage me in a productive dialogue, rather than attacking me personally, will find I'm incredibly easy to get on with and able to discuss any of my opinions. Do I really have to justify myself?

And the South of the UK is just what it sounds like, the South of the UK. Central south UK (ie, SOUTHampton)

I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking the persona you present on here, the one which claims ownership of writings far removed from your own hand.

I live in the Midlands. I would never say "mid UK". I might say central England. People in Southampton would describe themselves as from the south of England. Don't try to argue with this - it's a straightforward fact. I could give you leeway if you are living in Southampton but are from another country. Would that be the case? Have you looked up Danish kings yet?

zeuzzz wrote:Who mentioned a soul?Yes OBEs can be provoked by various means. My favorite is ketamine, becoming part of the ceiling and looking at yourself from above is a weird experience you tend not to forget (I had my first in the emergency room after a bike crash, when morphine was not strong enough they injected me with 150mg of ketamine to anesthetize me to the pain and lower my vital signs from critical levels). This effect was first documented in the literature by Hameroff when he was working in the anaesthetic department as an anaesthesiologist studying altered states of consciousness.

zeuzzz wrote:There's no real evidence for the mind or consciousness, only correlates to material neuronal activity that shows no direction of causation (this is always assumed as brain > consciousness, but works either way round), all we have is correlation without a direction of causation ever being proved, only assumed.

I will not agree here. Kennyc posted a few topics on we are learning how consciousness is arising and how it ceases to be. Also if you take people who have vegetative states then there is a problem with a Hameroff proposal of ways. Also Hameroff is making wild claims about Quantum Healing which is Chopras department and also he makes claims that consciousness is responsible for the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion a view that even Penrose is not happy what Hameroff did:

Neuroscience has pretty much been documenting this signal for all of it's history. It's a just a matter of how you subjectively interpret the data into your world view (materialistically or phenomenologically being the two main schools of thought). When you take into account the extremely alien and externally oriented experiences people have on psychedelics you have to conclude that these altered states of consciousness are coming from an external source of some sort, they are far more coherent and alien to a persons memories or expectations than can be explained by the materialistic train of thought of them being just neuronal chaos.

Most closed eye visuals in high enough doses are next to impossible to explain in terms of the brain producing them rather than receiving them, which is why they are referred to as 'mystical experiences' in the literature.

I agree that psychedelics can change your view on things. It did on many people like Ian Stevenson but it does not prove that we have a soul or a Quantum Mind. It would be nice if we would have something like that but I am skeptical because a lot of people who are on the Quantum Mind train use it for money like priests in the Catholic Church. Hameroff is even protecting Quantum Healing and the likes of Chopra and that sorry to say is enough for me to consider his research to be a New Age woo garden. It is sad because if there is something out there it could be but thanks to this they destroy it. Also it shows that even Hameroff is not completely convinced of his theories because he would not side with Chopra and would rather try to side with normal scientists. It shows that his theory is woo thanks to this..

I will look into your blog post when I have more time and comment if I may. This is a question..

Bah this will just be pounced on by religious bigots. What the hell is he doing. An unfortunate turn of events.

I will not agree here. Kennyc posted a few topics on we are learning how consciousness is arising and how it ceases to be. Also if you take people who have vegetative states then there is a problem with a Hameroff proposal of ways. Also Hameroff is making wild claims about Quantum Healing which is Chopras department and also he makes claims that consciousness is responsible for the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion a view that even Penrose is not happy what Hameroff did:

This is why I've always supported Penrose (I read his book shadows of the mind, brilliantly informative book if you want to understand his reasoning for his theory) but not so much Hameroff, who seems to have sold out on his theory, partially by bootstrapping himself on Rogers credentials and supporting things like quantum healing.

I agree that psychedelics can change your view on things. It did on many people like Ian Stevenson but it does not prove that we have a soul or a Quantum Mind. It would be nice if we would have something like that but I am skeptical because a lot of people who are on the Quantum Mind train use it for money like priests in the Catholic Church. Hameroff is even protecting Quantum Healing and the likes of Chopra and that sorry to say is enough for me to consider his research to be a New Age woo garden. It is sad because if there is something out there it could be but thanks to this they destroy it. Also it shows that even Hameroff is not completely convinced of his theories because he would not side with Chopra and would rather try to side with normal scientists. It shows that his theory is woo thanks to this..

I will look into your blog post when I have more time and comment if I may. This is a question..

I'd not say that we have a soul, but I'd argue that we all have quantum minds to an extent. I just find it impossible to think that at some level you can't break down any synaptic firing down to a microtubule and molecular/atomic level, and at this scale it is impossible to ignore quantum effects. You even get quantum interference patterns showing wave particle duality with huge molecules much larger than any type of neurotransmitter.

To link this in with my posts about psychedelics what is important about the psychedelic family of illusion is they propel the entire mystery of illusion to center stage as they demonstrate that assumed bedrock of "ordinary perception" is in fact no bedrock at all, is is in fact a somewhat soft dwell point somewhere being in the mysteries of metabolism. And that consciousness in whatever its mysterious relationship to the brain is induced by endogenously introduced pseudo-neurotransmitters of some sort.

And to my mind this is very interesting, to my mind Alexander Shulgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin) has secured this in his work, in that by moving simply one atom in a molecule that is completely inactive you can change this into an active compound. It's seems quite spectacular to me. Now it seems to me you could hardly have a neater demonstration into the quantum foundation of consciousness, because you have moved one atom, and yet you have moved the mountains of mind 500 miles from the perspective from which they once looked.

Which is why I feel many have prematurely lumped this theory into the woo basket, and if they did it should have at least have been the recycling bin instead.

zeuzzz wrote:This is why I've always supported Penrose (I read his book shadows of the mind, brilliantly informative book if you want to understand his reasoning for his theory) but not so much Hameroff, who seems to have sold out on his theory, partially by bootstrapping himself on Rogers credentials and supporting things like quantum healing.

This is why I am skeptical of it. I believe that something Quantum can go on in the mind but I will not believe that there are souls or reincarnation involved. I will not buy this. I also posted a youtube link in another thread about Hamerofff. Here he claims that thanks to a Quantum Mind we can reincarnate ourselves or become immortal souls. I cannot agree with this because I think it smells like woo..

zeuzzz wrote:I'd not say that we have a soul, but I'd argue that we all have quantum minds to an extent. I just find it impossible to think that at some level you can't break down any synaptic firing down to a microtubule and molecular/atomic level, and at this scale it is impossible to ignore quantum effects. You even get quantum interference patterns showing wave particle duality with huge molecules much larger than any type of neurotransmitter.To link this in with my posts about psychedelics what is important about the psychedelic family of illusion is they propel the entire mystery of illusion to center stage as they demonstrate that assumed bedrock of "ordinary perception" is in fact no bedrock at all, is is in fact a somewhat soft dwell point somewhere being in the mysteries of metabolism. And that consciousness in whatever its mysterious relationship to the brain is induced by endogenously introduced pseudo-neurotransmitters of some sort.And to my mind this is very interesting, to my mind Alexander Shulgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin) has secured this in his work, in that by moving simply one atom in a molecule that is completely inactive you can change this into an active compound. It's seems quite spectacular to me. Now it seems to me you could hardly have a neater demonstration into the quantum foundation of consciousness, because you have moved one atom, and yet you have moved the mountains of mind 500 miles from the perspective from which they once looked.Which is why I feel many have prematurely lumped this theory into the woo basket, and if they did it should have at least have been the recycling bin instead.

I am not telling that some Quantum mechanics take place inside the head of us but to claim we can be reincarnated or become ethereal soul oh pardon Quantum Souls is stupid and pathetic. He has no evidence for that and even when there would be a Quantum mind there is not evidence that we would reincarnated or become souls. Maybe the Quantum states can reincarnate but they could become rocks or I don't know sand and not a living thing or when a living thing the a unconscious bacteria or a organ of someone else etc.. Why humans always believe that after death there is something more? I feel even good with the feeling that after death its oblivion for me..

zeuzzz wrote:[... what is important about the psychedelic family of illusion is they propel the entire mystery of illusion to center stage as they demonstrate that assumed bedrock of "ordinary perception" is in fact no bedrock at all, is is in fact a somewhat soft dwell point somewhere being in the mysteries of metabolism. And that consciousness in whatever its mysterious relationship to the brain is induced by endogenously introduced pseudo-neurotransmitters of some sort.

And to my mind this is very interesting, to my mind Alexander Shulgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin) has secured this in his work, in that by moving simply one atom in a molecule that is completely inactive you can change this into an active compound. It's seems quite spectacular to me. Now it seems to me you could hardly have a neater demonstration into the quantum foundation of consciousness, because you have moved one atom, and yet you have moved the mountains of mind 500 miles from the perspective from which they once looked.

I could cry. Zeuzzz, you're a {!#%@} fraud. What you claim, above, as original is actually a direct steal from Terence McKenna and, far from living in Southampton, he's dead. Are you dead? Are you communicating with us from beyond the grave?

You will be pleased to know that I don't want to read any more of your derived drivel. Congratulations - you become the first person to sit permanently on my 'Forever Ignore' list.

Shen1986 wrote:I am not telling that some Quantum mechanics take place inside the head of us but to claim we can be reincarnated or become ethereal soul oh pardon Quantum Souls is stupid and pathetic. He has no evidence for that and even when there would be a Quantum mind there is not evidence that we would reincarnated or become souls. Maybe the Quantum states can reincarnate but they could become rocks or I don't know sand and not a living thing or when a living thing the a unconscious bacteria or a organ of someone else etc.. Why humans always believe that after death there is something more? I feel even good with the feeling that after death its oblivion for me..

I agree with all of this, I don't like the idea of quantum effects in the brain being used to support religious type ideologies of a soul either.

I like this production of Stephen Fry and Neil De Grasse Tyson about science, death and reincarnation.

If those people who believe in God would rule the world or there would be more people we would end up in the caves like in the prehistoric age.

He said something in that lines. This is a reproduction what he wanted to say in that lines. Thanks for the video. Also his other quotes that his only is is scientist and he does not believe in any religion.

I agree here completely. I don't care where science will lead us and I am even sympathetic with the idea to die and that there is nothing more..

Its official Anirban is a woo proponent. He took part in a forum discussion where its full of woo proponents and entered the discussion I think for the cause to help Hameroff. However this is great really:

Deepak Chopra, June 26, 2013 at 10:29 am

Dear All If you time ability or desire please read Dean Radin's book Supernormal which we just published at Random House at my imprint Rita- you will like it

Dean Radin, June 26 at 10;29 am

Thanks Deepak.

For anyone who is interested, you can read the Foreward and the first chapter of my book here: www.supernormalbook.com. It is available for sale on July 16, but most online book sellers are taking preorders.

Shen1986 wrote:I agree here completely. I don't care where science will lead us and I am even sympathetic with the idea to die and that there is nothing more..

As much as I hate to keep bringing this subject up, but have you ever experimented rigorously with your own consciousness outside of culturally accepted norms?

I always find it fascinating how many different perspectives people approach consciousness from as if they are experts. When in fact all they all have is a hacked together bunch of fishy cultural assumptions, flavored by their education and discipline of choice and how this fits into their epistemic world view, and yet no one approaches consciousness scientifically themselves. And I don't mean reading the latest neural correlates of consciousness and going with the current academic consensus and materialistic paradigm, I mean actually using the chemical technologies we have to (safely) alter the heck out of it and see what it can actually do.

If you want to study particle physics you don't get very far sitting around looking at atoms, you have to smash those particles into bits, test their limits in high energy states, and then you will likely come back and say "Gee, I had no idea that minds could do that. This changes everything I had assumed before I actually experimented myself". I'm not talking some namby pandy notion of meeting the flying saucers or seeking enlightenment, but until some scientists can leave behind this myopic train of thought that the conscious experience is marginal and what is really important is certain material effects (that are easier to empirically study yes, and certainly are interesting) then we are only going to tie ourselves up in the same 'hard problems' that subvert the modern trains of thought so dominant in many scientific circles.

What I find even more fascinating is some people who spend their lives studying consciousness or altered states without ever trying them themselves. It's a weird friction between culturally accepted behaviors and open scientific inquiry.

The reason why I say this is not that strong doses of psychedelics like mushrooms or DMT (or any other pseudo-neurotransmitter) cause any sort of enlightenment, after all it's up the person who tried it what they make of it whether they enjoyed it or not, but once you try a high dose of DMT (a natural human metabolite and also the strongest/safest/shortest acting hallucinogen known to man) or mushrooms it raises the question that you don't even know what dying or consciousness is.

I'm not bashing science here even though some may perceive it that way, just the people that are totally ignorant of how science and axiomatic systems in general work, and use it for some type of closure. I love the method, I hate the people that use science as if it were a religion (or replacement for it).

This video I produced is tangentially about some of the issues I've just ranted about.

zeuzzz wrote:As much as I hate to keep bringing this subject up, but have you ever experimented rigorously with your own consciousness outside of culturally accepted norms?

I have for your information. When I was a believer I did my own experiments.

1. I did a lot of meditation,lucid dreaming stuff and was close to some OBE experience according to some books.

2. I did not take DMT or things like that but I did one experiment with my friends who were users of DMT, Marihuanna and things like that. I talked to them about their experiences and even wanted to see it in action as how their behavior was after they took it. I even wrote down how and which drug affected them but that was done in the past and when I read a book that these states release your soul. Then they told me about their experiences with the drugs and what they felt. Strangely no one of them became a believer or no one of them took it as a sign of a higher power..

zeuzzz wrote:I always find it fascinating how many different perspectives people approach consciousness from as if they are experts. When in fact all they all have is a hacked together bunch of fishy cultural assumptions, flavored by their education and discipline of choice and how this fits into their epistemic world view, and yet no one approaches consciousness scientifically themselves. And I don't mean reading the latest neural correlates of consciousness and going with the current academic consensus and materialistic paradigm, I mean actually using the chemical technologies we have to (safely) alter the heck out of it and see what it can actually do. If you want to study particle physics you don't get very far sitting around looking at atoms, you have to smash those particles into bits, test their limits in high energy states, and then you will likely come back and say "Gee, I had no idea that minds could do that. This changes everything I had assumed before I actually experimented myself". I'm not talking some namby pandy notion of meeting the flying saucers or seeking enlightenment, but until some scientists can leave behind this myopic train of thought that the conscious experience is marginal and what is really important is certain material effects (that are easier to empirically study yes, and certainly are interesting) then we are only going to tie ourselves up in the same 'hard problems' that subvert the modern trains of thought so dominant in many scientific circles.

They are trying it or the test subjects or rats are trying it for them to see what happens and what part of the brain activates when they take such a drug etc.. There were scientists who even took drugs and experimented on themselves and wrote down what they felt.

zeuzzz wrote:The reason why I say this is not that strong doses of psychedelics like mushrooms or DMT cause any sort of enlightenment, after all it's up the person who tried it what they make of it whether they enjoyed it or not, but once you try a high dose of DMT (a natural human metabolite and also the strongest/safest/shortest acting hallucinogen known to man) or mushrooms it raises the question that you don't even know what dying or consciousness is.

I personally don't think that taking DMT will make a scientist more knowable about consciousness or dying.

zeuzzz wrote:This video I produced is tangentially about some of the issues I've just ranted about.

A longtime sufferer of migraines, in mid-1999 McKenna returned to his home on the big island of Hawaii after a long lecturing tour. He began to suffer from increasingly painful headaches. This culminated in three brain seizures in one night, which he claimed were the most powerful psychedelic experiences he had ever known.

Shen1986 wrote:1. I did a lot of meditation,lucid dreaming stuff and was close to some OBE experience according to some books.

Cool. All of these things fascinate me, ever since I learn't to lucid dream on demand I tend to sleep a lot more Well I say on demand, it's more like every other night, as soon as I walk through a doorway in my dream I tap the top of it to remind myself to check if I'm awake or asleep. I only did it for a month in real life, and still do it sometimes, but that was enough to get it into my subconsious that whenever I go through a door in my dream I also remember to do it, and suddenly realize I'm dreaming, and can take control from then on (unless I get too excited, then I wake up!).

My favorite lucid dreams are the ones where I'm not bounded by the laws of physics, I tend to fly over mountains and look at nature. For some reason it tends to rain butterflies whenever I choose to do this (don't ask). I have my notes here and if I recall the only substance that gave me practically the same effect of these lucid dreams was 5-mapb about 3 days later when my sertogenic system was nearly at homeostasis again. Some people have reported similar hypnagogic type effects with their consciousness after using MDMA, usually right between the period where you are no longer awake but not yet fully asleep, often accompanied by sleep paralysis or Hypnic jerks (the same happens when people are withdrawing from SSRIs sometimes). I guess that the equivalent term for what I sometimes experience is astral traveling, strictly in the not woo sense, just it shares many similarities with what people who claim to be able to do this say.

2. I did not take DMT or things like that but I did one experiment with my friends who were users of DMT, Marihuanna and things like that. I talked to them about their experiences and even wanted to see it in action as how their behavior was after they took it. I even wrote down how and which drug affected them but that was done in the past and when I read a book that these states release your soul. Then they told me about their experiences with the drugs and what they felt. Strangely no one of them became a believer or no one of them took it as a sign of a higher power..

No one, least of all me, would ask anyone to believe in anything ideological, or believe in a 'higher power'. Can I ask the dosage they took? The trouble with strong psychedelics like this is that people think that the problem lies in taking too much, whereas in fact the problem often lies in taking too little, because if you take too little your ego and identity can resist the experience, you'll end up struggling with it, and then it can turn into a real mess because you are afraid of it, and to some extent you actually do have the power to some degree to resist it. What you want to do is take sufficiently enough so that there is no escape.

I only say this due to the titanic LD50 of these substances vs aspirin, alcohol or paracetamol, for instance.

If by a 'higher power' you mean that people can re-contextualize their old identity as preposterous, their ego too big or they were not happy in their relationships, whatever the message may be, then maybe that's it. If the 'higher power' is aiding the grand project of boundary dissolution in a world that we have covered over from 10,000 years of bad habits, swirly religions, silly cults, stereotypes and general boundaries that serves no purpose but to separate people from each other and nature then yes, I'm all for it.

what we are facing is a crisis of two distinct things: consciousness and conditioning. We essentially have tens of thousands of years of bad habits to decondition ourselves from, primate dominance complexes, male dominance, egotistic social structures, classicism, racism, suppression of new ideas in place of 'business as usual'; and it's not easy.

The question is not can we change our minds collectively, but can we change our minds fast enough. And the only thing I can see that has the potential to decondition people from their myopic faceted conscious awareness is these boundary dissolving pseudo-neurotramsmitters. I've seen relatively unpleasant people go for a seven day ayahusaca session and come back genuinely nice people, apologizing for what they were like before, telling their parents they love them, etc. This is not based on just my anecdotal experiences of people around me, the clinical data on psilocybin and a host of similar chemical cousins is proving this fact time and time again (see the description of the above video I linked to for the scientific literature).

Psychedelics act as it were like a reset button. We are not ultimately creature of our culture, ultimately we are biologically defined and what these psychedelics do is inject an enormous amount of distance between us and our culturally and ideologically learnt points of view.

They are trying it or the test subjects or rats are trying it for them to see what happens and what part of the brain activates when they take such a drug etc..

And it's great they are doing this.

There were scientists who even took drugs and experimented on themselves and wrote down what they felt.

Most scientists use drugs in someway. In fact the relationship between psychedelics, creativity and scientific breakthroughs is a very interesting subject ...

I personally don't think that taking DMT will make a scientist more knowable about consciousness or dying.

Dying, maybe not. Consciousness, certainly. In fact I would state that a single breakthrough DMT experience is probably worth the same level of insight into consciousness as spending ten years studying art history, psychology, consciousness, neuroscience, psychedelics, shamanism, behavior, psychology, nature or anthropology.

A longtime sufferer of migraines, in mid-1999 McKenna returned to his home on the big island of Hawaii after a long lecturing tour. He began to suffer from increasingly painful headaches. This culminated in three brain seizures in one night, which he claimed were the most powerful psychedelic experiences he had ever known.

I would be extremely wary of trusting the wikipedia page on him, even though it does give a brief overview of his culturally significant achievements he was far much more than that. One thing is for sure you'll be hearing more of his views in the future, as he was decades ahead of his time, Robert Anton Wilson (another no nonsense guy) described him as one of the most important people on the plant shortly before his death. In fact some of the conversations they both has have to be some of the most intellectually stimulating discussions I've ever listened to.

This is interesting for me because it shows that all these experiences are made by the brain and can be made naturally. I know I am filtering it through my own materialistic view of life.

No I agree, nearly every conscious experience has a physical manifestation that can be scientifically tested. Which is what makes science so great, we can start to try to understand these altered states by studying the exact neurophysiology and chemistry involved. But to reduce everything to a bunch of meaningless chemicals with no purpose is a misunderstanding of applying meaning to external co-ordinates.

zeuzzz wrote:My favorite lucid dreams are the ones where I'm not bounded by the laws of physics, I tend to fly over mountains and look at nature. For some reason it tends to rain butterflies whenever I choose to do this (don't ask). I have my notes here and if I recall the only substance that gave me practically the same effect of these lucid dreams was 5-mapb about 3 days later when my sertogenic system was nearly at homeostasis again. Some people have reported similar hypnagogic type effects with their consciousness after using MDMA, usually right between the period where you are no longer awake but not yet fully asleep, often accompanied by sleep paralysis or Hypnic jerks (the same happens when people are withdrawing from SSRIs sometimes). I guess that the equivalent term for what I sometimes experience is astral traveling, strictly in the not woo sense, just it shares many similarities with what people who claim to be able to do this say.

Hmm. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.I had a near OBE experience but that was thanks to little sleep and stress a few months back. Thanks for sharing that story it is interesting for me..

zeuzzz wrote:No one, least of all me, would ask anyone to believe in anything ideological, or believe in a 'higher power'. Can I ask the dosage they took? The trouble with strong psychedelics like this is that people think that the problem lies in taking too much, whereas in fact the problem often lies in taking too little, because if you take too little your ego and identity can resist the experience, you'll end up struggling with it, and then it can turn into a real mess because you are afraid of it, and to some extent you actually do have the power to some degree to resist it. What you want to do is take sufficiently enough so that there is no escape.

The dosage if I recall good (it has been some years when I did the experiments) they took a higher dosage. There were many trials we tried back then because the people want to try almost everything. One of them had a book which is banned here now because it had many recipes how to get the needed effect. If I recall good they tried DMT, mushrooms and I don't know what.. I cannot remember correctly and I don't know if I have the notes still with me because in that time the most important thing was to confirm that trips can merge you with god or a spiritual world, you know like the New Age books.

If by a 'higher power' you mean that people can re-contextualize their old identity as preposterous, their ego too big or they were not happy in their relationships, whatever the message may be, then maybe that's it. If the 'higher power' is aiding the grand project of boundary dissolution in a world that we have covered over from 10,000 years of bad habits, swirly religions, silly cults, stereotypes and general boundaries that serves no purpose but to separate people from each other and nature then yes, I'm all for it.

I meant by a higher power God or spiritual entities and things like that.

what we are facing is a crisis of two distinct things: consciousness and conditioning. We essentially have tens of thousands of years of bad habits to decondition ourselves from, primate dominance complexes, male dominance, egotistic social structures, classicism, racism, suppression of new ideas in place of 'business as usual'; and it's not easy.

The question is not can we change our minds collectively, but can we change our minds fast enough. And the only thing I can see that has the potential to decondition people from their myopic faceted conscious awareness is these boundary dissolving pseudo-neurotramsmitters. I've seen relatively unpleasant people go for a seven day ayahusaca session and come back genuinely nice people, apologizing for what they were like before, telling their parents they love them, etc. This is not based on just my anecdotal experiences of people around me, the clinical data on psilocybin and a host of similar chemical cousins is proving this fact time and time again (see the description of the above video I linked to for the scientific literature).

Psychedelics act as it were like a reset button. We are not ultimately creature of our culture, ultimately we are biologically defined and what these psychedelics do is inject an enormous amount of distance between us and our culturally and ideologically learnt points of view.

I agree that our society is not good. Things that are happening are bad. I also don't like religion because people who are on top of it misuse it for money and other things. I think that people need to change and all of them. It would be great if humanity would finally start to work together and not fighting their ideological wars.

No I agree, nearly every conscious experience has a physical manifestation that can be scientifically tested. Which is what makes science so great, we can start to try to understand these altered states by studying the exact neurophysiology and chemistry involved. But to reduce everything to a bunch of meaningless chemicals with no purpose is a misunderstanding of applying meaning to external co-ordinates.

I am not saying its meaningless. Science like I get it only shows how its done. People gave labels that its meaningless and creates religion to make a meaning which I think its wrong. I think however that its not meaningless. For me knowing how the brain works gives me comfort and knowledge. I think the more I became a atheist the more I began to look on the world with open eyes because when I was a believer the world was for me a closed world because I already knew all the answers. You can laugh if you want but I take it this way.

I would also like to know what you meant by nearly all conscious experience can be traced. I would like to know the things that you meant that cannot be traced.